User talk:BattleshipMan
Welcome! Hi, welcome to Wiki 24! Thanks for your edit to the Renee Walker page. If the links above do not provide the answer to any of your questions, please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Thief12 (Talk) 17:45, May 6, 2012 Edit warring Hey, just a note to let you know about what to do if you disagree with someone reverting edits. An edit that has been made can be reverted, once, with an explanation in the edit summary of why it's being reverted. If there are still disagreements after that, it nees to be discussed on a talk page before anymore editing of the article is done. Otherwise we just end up with a back and forth edit war and a discussion being had via the summaries which is not how to have a proper debate on the wiki. I started a conversation here about the issue that came up--Acer4666 (talk) 23:54, January 18, 2015 (UTC) NPOV How is that not NPOV? We know what a hypocrite is and I explained how Erin displayed traits of a hypocrite so how is it not NPOV? I am editing with a neutral point of view.Cloudtheavenger (talk) 08:37, February 2, 2015 (UTC) :Calling Driscoll a "hypocrite" is definitely not a "neutral point of view". The personality traits that define a "hypocrite" are completely subjective and thus open to personal interpretations, which we try to avoid here. Some people might see her as a hypocrite, others might say she was being cautious by firing Jack, and others might say she was being too by-the-book, or any other interpretation. The thing is that we try to stay away from those subjective interpretations and stick with objective facts instead. Everything you stated in your edit, that Driscoll fired Jack or that her daughter was a schizophrenic, is in the content of the document, but we leave the interpretation to the viewer of the show, or the reader of the Wiki. There's nothing added to the article with that edit, other than a subjective weight against the character of Driscoll. Again, if you have any questions, feel free to ask me in my talk page. Thief12 (talk) 16:04, February 2, 2015 (UTC) And it did not occur to you to give me the link to the policies on this wikia like that second reply did.Cloudtheavenger (talk) 15:12, February 2, 2015 (UTC) Attitude This is in response to your reply to Gevorg89 on his talk page. Your lashing out at him saying "Newsflash, Gevorg89. Nobody cares what you think" and "Get that through your head" is completely unnecessary and, according to our policies, enough for me to block you. Our policy clearly states "Treat your fellow contributors with respect" and "Do not belittle or ridicule someone else's work or ideas". I don't know if there is a previous history between you two to "warrant" that attitude, but that still doesn't justify your response. And, if I may say so, more often than not, your tone on the website has been a bit off-putting and confrontational. I'm giving you this warning for you to tone down and watch your attitude. You've been warned. Thief12 (talk) 00:03, February 28, 2015 (UTC) User's questionable edits So, uh, what do you want me to do about him? OneWeirdDude (talk) 14:50, October 12, 2015 (UTC) Rollback policy Hi Battleshipman - you were granted the rollback right on the condition you abide by the policy, namely that it is only used in the cases of spam, vandalism or obvious bad faith edits. this edit, adding extra appearances to an actor (of which at least one of which is correct and we missed) is none of these. Please only use the rollback feature when vandalism or spam occur, and any edits you need to undo which could be honest attempts to contribute must be undone using the normal "undo" button and an edit summary left by you. Otherwise you are eligible to lose the rollback right. Thanks!--Acer4666 (talk) 17:55, January 12, 2016 (UTC) :That user's edits seemed gibberish and he poorly replaced the IMDb link. That's why I did that. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:08, January 12, 2016 (UTC) ::In what way were they gibberish? The edit added legitimate episodes that the actor appeared in. The IMDB link was replaced with an equivalent link to the same page. The name was changed to the actor's name on imdb, presumably a stage name. How were they "gibberish"?--Acer4666 (talk) 18:11, January 12, 2016 (UTC) :::The link below was red and it was listed as imdb.me instead of .com. IMDb uses id number of the actors which that user removed. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:56, January 12, 2016 (UTC) ::I see...if you are going to view people adding red links as vandalism, perhaps I should remove your rollback rights? That is clearly not a sensible definition of "gibberish"--Acer4666 (talk) 19:06, January 12, 2016 (UTC) :::I'll keep that in mind next time. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:25, January 12, 2016 (UTC) Second reminder Second reminder about abiding by the rollback policy - this rollback of a good faith edit had no explanation, remember it is just for use in cases of vandalism or spam, thanks--Acer4666 (talk) 21:20, October 4, 2016 (UTC) :There were some unnecessary categories in that category. That's why I did the rollback in that edit. It was made by that same user who did that category bloat in Deaths on 24. Also, I just don't know how to type in the explanation on the rollback. There was no place how to type in the explanation for it. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:09, October 4, 2016 (UTC) ::You're not listening to what I am saying - the rollback button is only to be used for vandalism or spam - getting categories wrong is not that, we've all done it, me and you included. The point is that when using rollback it is impossible to type an explanation, so you should not use it at all if the revert is something requiring explanation. This is explained clearly in the rollbacker policy ("using rollback makes a custom edit summary impossible") which I said you needed to read as a condition of getting the user right. Did you actually read the policy?--Acer4666 (talk) 22:27, October 4, 2016 (UTC) Third reminder Hi Battleshipman - this is your third, and sadly final reminder - this edit undid quotes from the episode being added to the memorable quotes section. Regardless of whether or not the quotes should stay, using the rollback function to remove this is in clear contravention of the rollbacker policy. I'm afraid the next time this happens, the rights will be removed. Hope you understand - feel free to comment if this is unclear - but please remember, this is not an issue of whether the content should be removed or not, it's an issue of whether or not it was added in good faith--Acer4666 (Talk) 22:42, February 9, 2018 (UTC) :The quotes were too big to fill in that episode page and parts of those quotes on the quote section of that episode. That's why I did that. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:08, February 9, 2018 (UTC) ::Please take some time to do this, because it is quite important. Re-read, slowly, the rollbacker policy, making sure you understand it all. Have another read of the message I put above. Then please try to write a reply that convinces me you've understood why you have contravened the policy, and why I have given you these warnings. Why there is a difference between an edit that needs to be rollbacked and an edit that needs to be removed '''but not rollbacked'''. If you can't do that, then I guess your rollback status will have to be removed right now, because that reply you've just given, and all your previous replies on this topic, have indicated that you have fatally misunderstood everything about the policy I'm trying to explain to you.--Acer4666 (Talk) 23:33, February 9, 2018 (UTC) "See Also" sections? I've been adding the people who obstructed investigations outside of self-defense to their respective "See Also" pages and you reverted all of them (dw, not being passive-agressive xD). Anyway, I can see removing Martha since Charlies didn't do much (and Jack kills defenseless people ocassionally and this becomes "always" if you include debatable areas), but the others... Hamid and Nash may be debatable, but Inessa I think should be there. Unlike the other pages, the investigation in Erwich was going smoothly with Rossler having turned. Now just to clarify, I fully understand that these characters are not antagonists, but I would argue that they should be under the "See Also" section (i.e. like Theresa's section here). You really think they aren't? And I take it this is a concession that Curtis isn't a D6Ant? And while we're on this subject, since the prison guard who killed Luis for Roman (whose son was hostage) on Day 3 is under "See Also" for D3, shouldn't Ray Wallace be put under See Also for D6 since he also did an extremely immoral act under coercion (and this one caused a lot more deaths?)--SuperbowserX (talk) 16:51, March 17, 2016 (UTC) :Problem is that many characters that are added in those articles are generally not antagonists in a way. Martha Logan didn't exactly obstructed anyway in Day 6 when she called Anya to convince her to talk to her husband about Anatoly Markov's involvement. Hamib never exactly obstructed anything when he stabbed Harbinson, who revealed Tony's whereabouts while in the gurney. Nash felt rightly betrayed by Alexis when he used her and that she was overwhelmed by his betrayal. Inessa is debatable since she was a victim of the sex slavery by Rossler. :Sometimes there are issues with characters who did some immoral acts, but are not antagonists like Jack and some of the other characters in 24. That's why I reverted those edits until a discussion can be settled in a way. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:11, March 17, 2016 (UTC) Nitromancer - 9 hours ago So I told BattleshipMan to leave the chat.. he actually did it the absolute madman hahahahahahaha! 16:50, June 10, 2016 (UTC) :Look, sorry about that. But I needed to cool off and you told me to leave the chat. I know that sometimes I can become defensive when it comes to differing opinions and I hate clashing others with those issues. But sometimes, you can't share opinions with others who disagree with them. Some of them would take offense to it, whatever you realize it or not. Social media has those problems with people clashing over differing opinions and sometimes it's best not to share opinions to those who disagreed with them, which would upset them to the point where they exchange verbal fights in posts. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:39, June 10, 2016 (UTC) Voting Hey dude, would love to hear your thoughts on this thread when you get a chance. Thanks! --Pyramidhead (talk) 02:18, December 17, 2016 (UTC)